Does no one accept responsibility any more?

[Rico]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I agree with you. The "home" I was referring to was His Mother's. I don't think He had His own home.

So, whatcha tryin to say? You believe He was a Mama's boy 'til the end?

[chosenbyone]

Originally Posted by nathan_slatter

...those who favor national health care schemes should take a good, hard look at our veterans' hospitals. There is your national health care. These institutions are a national disgrace. If this is the care the government dispenses to those it honors as its most heroic and admirable citizens, why should anyone else expect to be treated any better?

Guess who said that...

I don't know who made the statement above; however, the reason why the VA has been a national disgrace was because of the lack of funding and the sheer mismanagement that has plague the system.

The bigger disgrace was how our veterans, who have served their country and especially those that were in combat, have had the VA fail them when it came to getting the treatment they needed.

The headlines regarding Walter Reed came to mind when I thought of the substandard care that has been given to our troops.

I am interested to know what the conditions are in Canada for those soldiers/sailors injured in battle and are in need of medical care?

Originally Posted by nathan_slatter

...those who favor national health care schemes should take a good, hard look at our veterans' hospitals. There is your national health care. These institutions are a national disgrace. If this is the care the government dispenses to those it honors as its most heroic and admirable citizens, why should anyone else expect to be treated any better?

Guess who said that...

Not every Veteran's hospital has the issues that were in the news. I got bad service at a really nasty Applebee's one night...does that mean they're all terrible places to eat? Of course not.

But this brings up a glaring issue....we're NOT talking about government run hospitals. That is a mischaracterization that has been drilled into so many heads most against universal health insurance think we're talking about nationalized health care.

Let's take Obama's plan and explain it YET AGAIN for the people who think we're talking nationalized health care. The entire Democratic plan is through private insurance companies and is market driven. Oh...and no "government hospitals". First, under the Democratic plan if you're an employer and you're happy with the plans you offer and the contributions you're making you can continue the plans you have. But if you're an employer who can't provide insurance to employees because it is too expense you pay a contribution into the national health INSURANCE system. This system is through private insurers. Basically the government will take up your employees as though they are government employees. The government will negotiate their premiums based on the very large group rates the government can negotiate by picking up tens of millions of people. So you will only pay the contribution (which is less than what the insurance is going for on the open market) and your employees will get very low premiums (lower than current premiums). The public plans will be the exact same plans offered to members of Congress. And here's the deal...it's all through the private insurance companies. And there are no government hospitals or clinics to worry about...they remain privatized too. This is aimed at covering the vast majority of the uninsured....because in America the vast majority of the uninsured work, they just opt out of insurance because they can't afford it. This makes it affordable. Those that qualify will continue getting Medicare. There will also be a national health data base put together with the cooperating insurance agencies. This alone will reduce our nation's over all health care costs over 30%. With the majority of Americans insured the loss that the system is currently experience with unpaid bills of the uninsured will be greatly reduced allowing health care costs to stabilize and be reduced. Again this is because the lose produced by treating the uninsured in ERs and the annual average of 25,000 bankruptcies due to medical bills will no longer be passed to you and me...the consumers.

In this system the vast majority are covered and the vast majority are paying something into the system. No more freeloaders driving up your premiums like they are now.

So as you can see...this isn't "national health care". It's universal health insurance. And it's through the private entities that already exist.

Hope that clarifies bro.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by chosenbyone

I don't know who made the statement above; however, the reason why the VA has been a national disgrace was because of the lack of funding and the sheer mismanagement that has plague the system.

The bigger disgrace was how our veterans, who have served their country and especially those that were in combat, have had the VA fail them when it came to getting the treatment they needed.

The headlines regarding Walter Reed came to mind when I thought of the substandard care that has been given to our troops.

I am interested to know what the conditions are in Canada for those soldiers/sailors injured in battle and are in need of medical care?

I remember when I was a little girl and my Dad was in the VA hospital in Dallas and going to visit him. It was a dreary place, but I don't really know how well they were treated, but I do know I would want my Dad(if he were still living) or any other veteran or current member of the Armed Forces to have better care. It shouldn't have to look and feel like they are in an institution, or wait months and sometimes even years for treatment.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Rico

Even the honest politicians (if you can find one) eventually find it very difficult to resist the temptation to become corrupt. I was friends with the sheriff of this county I used to live in. He ended up getting elected as a state senator. I asked him what it was like and he told me he could not believe how easy it would be to get anything he wanted. New cars, money, special priveleges, anything: just to get him to vote a certain way.

This has been known to happen at High Schools in Texas.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Not every Veteran's hospital has the issues that were in the news. I got bad service at a really nasty Applebee's one night...does that mean they're all terrible places to eat? Of course not.

But this brings up a glaring issue....we're NOT talking about government run hospitals. That is a mischaracterization that has been drilled into so many heads most against universal health insurance think we're talking about nationalized health care.

Let's take Obama's plan and explain it YET AGAIN for the people who think we're talking nationalized health care. The entire Democratic plan is through private insurance companies and is market driven. Oh...and no "government hospitals". First, under the Democratic plan if you're an employer and you're happy with the plans you offer and the contributions you're making you can continue the plans you have. But if you're an employer who can't provide insurance to employees because it is too expense you pay a contribution into the national health INSURANCE system. This system is through private insurers. Basically the government will take up your employees as though they are government employees. The government will negotiate their premiums based on the very large group rates the government can negotiate by picking up tens of millions of people. So you will only pay the contribution (which is less than what the insurance is going for on the open market) and your employees will get very low premiums (lower than current premiums). The public plans will be the exact same plans offered to members of Congress. And here's the deal...it's all through the private insurance companies. And there are no government hospitals or clinics to worry about...they remain privatized too. This is aimed at covering the vast majority of the uninsured....because in America the vast majority of the uninsured work, they just opt out of insurance because they can't afford it. This makes it affordable. Those that qualify will continue getting Medicare. There will also be a national health data base put together with the cooperating insurance agencies. This alone will reduce our nation's over all health care costs over 30%. With the majority of Americans insured the loss that the system is currently experience with unpaid bills of the uninsured will be greatly reduced allowing health care costs to stabilize and be reduced. Again this is because the lose produced by treating the uninsured in ERs and the annual average of 25,000 bankruptcies due to medical bills will no longer be passed to you and me...the consumers.

In this system the vast majority are covered and the vast majority are paying something into the system. No more freeloaders driving up your premiums like they are now.

So as you can see...this isn't "national health care". It's universal health insurance. And it's through the private entities that already exist.

Hope that clarifies bro.

The problem with this plan is that companies will no longer see the need for providing insurance coverage for its employees because they will know the employees will have the option of going on the cheaper government sponsored plan. This is how we are going to end up with nationalized insurance. Millions upon millions upon millions of people are going to lose their coverage through work because companies will simply say they can't afford it any more. A huge bureaucracy will end up being formed to handle the influx of new people to the program. Money will have to come from somewhere to pay for this new, much needed bureaucracy and the democrats will raise taxes to get it done.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Rico

The problem with this plan is that companies will no longer see the need for providing insurance coverage for its employees because they will know the employees will have the option of going on the cheaper government sponsored plan. This is how we are going to end up with nationalized insurance. Millions upon millions upon millions of people are going to lose their coverage through work because companies will simply say they can't afford it any more. A huge bureaucracy will end up being formed to handle the influx of new people to the program. Money will have to come from somewhere to pay for this new, much needed bureaucracy and the democrats will raise taxes to get it done.

Can you imagine government paid doctors and nurses?

[Rico]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

Can you imagine government paid doctors and nurses?

I don't think it will go that far, to be honest with you. I do think it will get to the point that no employers in the USA will be offering health insurance to their employees. Companies like GM, that are self insured, will simply find a way to show they can no longer afford to be so, and they will stop offering health insurance. Right now, approximately $1500 of the price of every new GM vehicles goes to the company's health insurance costs. Companies like GM will argue that, in order for them to stay solvent and competitive, they have to eliminate the insurance.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Jesus was not homeless. He could home any time He wanted. He was stating that He was not a part of this world's system and was not putting down roots. Jesus was not some namby pamby weakling. He was a man's man and was extremely "ticked" when He drove out the money changers from the temple with a whip.

Error. Jesus was meek and humble in heart. He was no weakling...meaning he was man enough not to feel he had to be a macho "man's man". We see that Christ turned the other cheek and never used lethal force or direct physical violence. Let's look at the passage where you accuse him of using a "whip"

"14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." - John 2:14-16

First, he didn't use a whip, he took ropes. Most likely those ropes used with the animals. We then read that he "drove them" he didn't "beat them". Yes, Jesus was angered, but he wasn't some bombastic madman acting in a rage. He was controlled and deliberate. Also it's important to note the most important aspect of this event...these were men using religion for profit. Because the temple was considered sacred, Roman and secular money wasn't allowed to be used on the temple grounds. So these changers would act as an exchange of sorts. They took the real money used in everyday and gave the people "temple money" that was virtually worthless. Also unit for unit the exchange rate was nearly half. It would be like me taking $100 of real money from you and giving you $50 in Monopoly money to spend on your tithes. If your tithes were $100 in real money, you'd have to give me $200 in real money just to get the $100 in Monopoly money to meet your tithe obligation. This was EXTORTION and OPPRESSION of the poor of God's people and Jesus wouldn't tolerate it. You wanna get Jesus swinging a scourge of rope at you and drive you from his presence...ignore the extortion of the poor.

He did fellowship the poor but there is nothing to say that he hungered all the time and repeated the above scenario. I have many times worked with the poor and am doing so now. I have and continue to defend the weak hurting and exploited.

First, Jesus fellowshipped the poor and we see that he and the disciples freely gleaned from the crop of another as the Law of Moses allowed them. Jesus was what one might classify as an ascetic rabbi who called his disciples to leave their trades and follow him. He also taught them to forsake all to do so, including houses and lands. Read it...Peter got pretty concerned that they had embraced an oath of poverty at one point. However, we see how when Jesus offered the price to follow him to some they walked away sad after he asked that they sell all they had and follow him... because they had much riches.

It should also be noted that in the Old Testament the Levitical Priesthood was forbidden to own land. Not that Jesus was a Levitical Priest, but to illustrate a continuity of principle in spiritual leadership between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

That being said, people STILL need to take personal responsibility. It is just as much a biblical principle as helping those in need if not more so. Or have you forgotten that one? I have NEVER said that we don't help folks.

The only class the Bible states are not entitled to assistance are able bodied MEN who will not work. Widows, the fatherless (meaning mother and child), and the poor were entitled to glean per the gleaning rights under the Law of Moses. In addition they were the beneficiaries of the "poor tithe" which was to be gathered into the national store houses every third year. Essentially this was a national public assistance program.

I am adamantly against supporting people who take no initiative to help themselves and want someone else to do it for them. That is what I meant in the first post and stand by it.

That's fine. I share some of your feelings. But don't equate our personal opinions to being Biblical truth. Biblically speaking women who mothered children are not bound to work, not even those abandoned by their husbands (the fatherless) or who's husbands perished (widows). The Bible entitles fatherless women and children, widows, the needy (handicapped), the poor, and the stranger to glean thus establishing the principle that a nation is responsible for the most basic necessity of life...food...in an ancient agrarian culture that is described economically as distributist at best.

Obviously, your Mother was NOT one of those people who was a mooch. She used the help when it was needed and then moved on. I respect anyone who does that. I have little or no respect for those who want someone else or the government or their church to do everything for them and support them while they are wasters of what they are given. They will continue to be takers until they learn how to give. The solution is NOT a hand OUT....it is a hand UP! It is teaching, imparting and helping. It is NOT supporting them.

I agree, Paul illustrated that able bodied MEN were to be refused assistance.

If you want to use your finances to support free-loaders, go for it. I won't and don't. But for someone who is trying, I'll be there for them and help them.

I do respect that. The issue is that there are millions who are trying and need a help up...but nobody's there for them. Many social programs are vitally important in helping them. Not to mention many if not most social charities get subsidies and block grants from the Fed to keep their doors open.

Here's the deal bro...your original post sounded snooty, heartless, and accusatory toward the idea that there might be some who sincerely need help and are asking for it. I'm speaking up for them...not the free loaders. I was taught by my elder to always lean on mercy. I advocate assistance for all who ask....but seek to address freeloaders individually. I don't demean everyone who asks for help only to restate that there are exceptions in a later statement. We're saying the very similar things...my initial presentation is with open arms to all...while your's is with a boot to the rear for all. lol

[ManOfWord]

Grasshopper, if you back and read my original post, you'll see that the entire theme was personal responsibility. That word is also in the thread title. The Bible is STRONG on personal responsibility. We are all accountable for our own actions, good/bad, smart or stupid. I am not retracting anything I originally posted. I have personally been on assistance when it was needed when I was first married. I didn't stay on it and continue to work to support my family. America is one of the only countries in the world where opportunities abound whether a person is able bodied or not.

In places like India, a disabled person can only beg. In America, they can hold down a full time job and actually do well if they have a good work ethic. America truly is the land of opportunity and there are few people, indeed, who cannot work.

Also, your descriptions of what Jesus did in the temple are only your suppositions. I am well aware of the customs of the day. Jesus was not out of control. He was perfectly in control and was ticked off at what the religious people were doing. He DID drive them out with a whip of small cords. The key word is whip. He DROVE them out. He didn't politely ask them to leave. Don't make Him out to be something that he wasn't. The Bible is clear in what it states. If He would have the ground open up and swallow the disobedient in the OT, then it is certainly within His character to whip them out of the temple.